Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to
be considered as precedent before any tribunal.

ENTRY ORDER

SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-365

JANUARY TERM, 2005

In re C.J. and R.J., Juveniles

}}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}}

APPEALED FROM:

Lamoille Family Court

DOCKET NO. 19-04/57-10-01 Lejv

Trial Judge: Alan W. Cheever

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

Mother appeals the termination of her residual parental
rights in her son C.J. and daughter R.J. We affirm.

R.J. and C.J. are two of mother'
s six biological children. Both children, now in their early teens, were
adjudicated in need of care and supervision (CHINS) in the fall of 2001 and
summer of 2002 respectively. Mother could not adequately supervise and
discipline the children and she suffered from substance abuse issues. The family
court subsequently approved a disposition plan calling for reunification with
mother and requiring mother to achieve a number of goals. The goals included the
following: (1) provide C.J. and R.J. with a stable home free from illegal drugs;
(2) maintain stable employment; (3) engage in individual therapy to address her
substance abuse issues and her attention deficit disorder; and (4) attend and
complete anger management and parenting classes. Since the time the children
were removed from her home, mother has not achieved any of those goals.

Mother' s lack of
progress on the case plan goals prompted the Department for Children and
Families (DCF) to petition the family court for an order terminating mother'
s parental rights in both children. The court took evidence over four days in
the spring and summer of 2004. In its order, the court found that mother was
deceitful. She absconded to Canada with her youngest child when he was in the
legal custody of DCF. Mother was eventually caught and convicted of custodial
interference. Mother' s deceit was
also apparent in the stories she told to DCF officials about various matters
related to the children. For example, C.J. burned himself one evening when she
was not at home. She told DCF that she was home on that evening, that C.J.
burned himself accidentally with boiling water while cooking a hotdog. She said
that she did not bring C.J. to the hospital right away because she did not
realize that the burn was so severe. The court found that mother lied about the
incident. In truth, C.J. and R.J. were left unattended that evening and the burn
resulted from their attempt to mimic a movie stunt. C.J. poured gasoline on his
leg and ignited it. The boy received second-degree burns from the incident, but
he did not want R.J. to obtain treatment for him because he feared his mother
would get into trouble.

On another occasion, mother claimed to be home on a night
that R.J. suffered severe alcohol poisoning and needed hospitalization. The
family court found her assertion incredible. The court found that mother was not
home and that the local police tried to contact her after they took R.J. to the
hospital. The police were not able to reach mother until early the following
morning. Mother also lied to DCF about R.J. and C.J'
s behavior on one night in June 2003. The children were out taking cars without
their owners' consent. Like their
mother, the children lied about the incident to DCF as well.

The court' s
findings show that the chaos caused by mother'
s lack of appropriate supervision impaired the children'
s ability to function normally. With respect to R.J., the court found that
mother and daughter relate as peers. Mother smoked marijuana with R.J. on the
child' s fourteenth birthday. Mother
has taken R.J. to bars where mother' s
friends were drunk and " falling over."
R.J.' s behavior at school became
problematic, and on one occasion, R.J. was caught smoking marijuana with some
friends. R.J. has been sexually active with boys her own age and older, and she
has abused alcohol. R.J.' s
out-of-control and self-damaging behavior led to her placement at a year-round,
residential program for adolescents. R.J. is scheduled to remain in the
residential program until June 2005.

Mother' s poor
parenting has had a profoundly adverse effect on C.J. also. C.J. believes he is
responsible for his mother and that he is the reason for her troubles. The court
found that C.J.' s need to care for
mother adversely affects his normal development, and that if left unchecked, the
child will lack the ability to function well as an adult. The court found that
despite C.J.' s bond and stated desire
to reunite with mother, the relationship he has with her is unhealthy. For
example, C.J.' s loyalty to mother
creates a risk to his health as evidenced by his refusal to get treatment for
second-degree burns on his leg.

The family court ultimately determined that terminating
mother' s rights so that C.J. and R.J.
could be adopted were in the children'
s best interests. Mother appeals that determination, arguing that DCF failed to
present sufficient evidence on the children'
s bond with mother and whether severing that bond is in the their best
interests. Mother' s claim has no
merit.

Mother does not challenge the court'
s fact findings. Therefore, we will affirm the order on appeal if the findings
support the court' s conclusions.
In re A.W., 167 Vt. 601, 603 (1998).

When the family court considers a petition to terminate a
parent' s residual parental rights, it
must determine if termination serves the best interests of the children in light
of the four factors provided by §
5540 of Title 33. 33 V.S.A. § 5540.
Two of the four factors relate to the parent-child bond. Specifically, factors
one and four require the family court to consider:

(1) The interaction and interrelationship of the child
with his natural parents, his foster parents if any, his siblings, and any
other person who may significantly affect the child'
s best interests; [and]

. . . .

(4) Whether the natural parent has played and continues
to play a constructive role, including personal contact and demonstrated
love and affection, in the child'
s welfare.

Id. § 5540(1),
(4). In this case, the court heard substantial evidence on the relationship
between mother and the children, and the court addressed the two factors at
issue here. The court found that the children had an unhealthy relationship with
their mother. C.J. holds beliefs about mother that are harmful to his proper
development. R.J.' s peer relationship
with mother taught her to engage in self-destructive behavior like taking
illegal drugs, having sex, and drinking alcohol. Mother has not played a
constructive role in the lives of her children.

Overall, the court'
s findings establish that the bond the children have with mother is not one that
will aid their healthy development into functional adults. The court concluded
that severing mother' s legal
relationship with R.J. and C.J. was, therefore, in the children'
s best interests. That conclusion has ample support in the evidence and in the
court' s findings. No error appears.